Withholding Material Witnesses Casts a Long Shadow on the Prosecution: Allahabad High Court Flags Fatal Gaps in Murder Trial

“When Star Witnesses Are Named but Not Produced, Doubt Becomes Inevitable” – In a telling judgment underscoring the prosecution’s duty to present the best available evidence, the Allahabad High Court held that non-examination of material eye-witnesses without explanation strikes at the root of the prosecution case and entitles the accused to benefit of doubt.

The Division Bench of Justice Siddhartha Varma and Justice Prashant Mishra-I acquitted the appellant of murder under Section 302 IPC, observing that several named eye-witnesses, including the scribe of the FIR, were withheld from the witness box without justification.

The Court found that this omission, coupled with contradictory ocular testimony and suspicious circumstances surrounding the FIR, rendered the conviction unsafe.

Named as Eye-Witnesses, Yet Never Examined

The prosecution story in the FIR specifically named Beche Lal, Ganga Ram, Jalil and Keshari Lal as eye-witnesses to the alleged stabbing. According to PW-1 Ram Singh, these individuals were present at the spot and witnessed the assault.

However, none of these witnesses were examined at trial.

The High Court noted that even Beche Lal, who allegedly accompanied the informant to the police station to lodge the FIR, was not produced.

The Bench observed that the prosecution offered no explanation whatsoever for their non-examination.

In criminal trials, especially those resting on direct ocular evidence, withholding material witnesses without explanation raises an adverse inference. The Court found that such conduct weakened the prosecution case considerably.

Scribe of FIR Not Examined – A Missing Link

The written report was allegedly dictated by the informant to one Putti Lal. Yet, the scribe himself was never examined.

The High Court emphasized that examination of the scribe assumes significance where allegations of interpolation and ante-timing of the FIR are raised.

Had the scribe deposed, he could have clarified whether the contents were faithfully recorded and when the document was prepared.

The absence of his testimony further deepened the doubt regarding the authenticity of the FIR.

Contradictions Among Related Witnesses

The Court also found inconsistencies among the examined witnesses.

PW-1 claimed that only family members were present at the time of occurrence, whereas PW-2 suggested villagers were present.

PW-3, the wife of the deceased, admitted she did not come out of the hut even after hearing alarm, yet later claimed she saw the accused running away.

The Bench observed that these contradictions were not minor discrepancies but material inconsistencies affecting the core of the prosecution story.

When key witnesses are not examined and those examined give contradictory versions, the prosecution’s case becomes inherently fragile.

Legal Duty of Prosecution: Present the Best Evidence

The High Court underscored that the prosecution carries a legal obligation to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt through credible and cogent evidence.

When the prosecution itself withholds witnesses who were allegedly present at the scene, it creates suspicion regarding the truthfulness of the narrative.

The Court noted that criminal trials are not a game of strategy where selective witnesses are produced while crucial ones are kept away.

Such omissions assume greater significance in cases involving life imprisonment.

Benefit of Doubt Inevitable

The Bench concluded that the cumulative effect of:

Non-examination of material eye-witnesses,
Failure to examine the FIR scribe,
Contradictory ocular testimony,
And suspicious circumstances surrounding police papers,

created serious doubt regarding the prosecution case.

Reiterating the settled principle that “suspicion cannot take the place of proof,” the Court held that the prosecution had failed to discharge its burden.

Allowing the appeal, the High Court set aside the conviction and life sentence imposed on the appellant in 1989.

The appellant was directed to be released forthwith if not wanted in any other case.

The judgment serves as a reminder that in criminal jurisprudence, withholding material witnesses can be as damaging as hostile testimony, and that courts must vigilantly guard against convictions resting on incomplete or selective evidence.

Date of Decision: 18 February 2026